Oregon's drug decriminalization failure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have always been a subset of people who, for whatever reason, just can’t function responsibly in society and most of them have no desire to do so. You just can’t help people who don’t want the be helped.

The problem is addicts. No one who is physiologically dependent on a substance - whether its alcohol or fentanyl or meth - can think rationally. Avoiding the abject misery of withdrawal is what guides their lives. Not reason. Not their well-being. Not their community. Nothing. They need their hit and they need it now and they'll do anything to get it. No one wants to live like that. But addiction takes hold and it's an awful thing.

Progressives, unfortunately, have enabled the downward cycle of so many hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country. Effectively legalizing fentanyl and tranq and other hard drugs has been disastrous, both for cities like Portland and SF as well as for the addicts themselves. Drug courts worked. It takes anywhere from three months to a year for a brain to heal from addiction. Until then, an addict is incapable of thinking clearly and calmly. Drug courts gave addicts two options - jail or treatment. But one way or another, they are going to detox. They can do it the hard way or the easy way. But those are the only options.

It gave addicts a chance. And it gives communities a respite from the depressing mayhem that active addiction causes. More policing is better for the addicts. Tougher judges is better for the addicts. It gets them off the streets, where they will die anyway. Progressives have completely lost the plot. The left is very much a cause of the blight and sadness that have beset so many communities.

You didn’t read the article. It clearly stated that decriminalizing didn’t cause the problem. There were other factors that caused it.

Stop blaming the progressive left for this. The right votes down any kind of healthcare, subsidized housing, or social program. The right turns their backs to folks in need and actively seeks to hurt people with their legislation.

It's not that cut and dry. The article and podcast did state the treatment centers portion didn't materialize fully, but that doesn't mean decriminalization did not cause or exacerbate the problem, because it did.

Again, if you listen to the podcast, they included testimony from FORMER ADDICTS who said decriminalizing drug use was harmful because getting arrested and going to jail was the deterrent and kick in the butt they needed kick their habit.

The reality is that both the criminal justice response and the healthcare response don't fully work. Getting locked up and going to jail works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone. Getting into a treatment center/program works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone.

So the reality is, there are only imperfect solutions on the table. And removing one of those imperfect solutions, which is the criminalization of drugs, definitely made the situation worse. Especially since the treatment alternative was woefully unprepared to fill the gap cause by decriminalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have always been a subset of people who, for whatever reason, just can’t function responsibly in society and most of them have no desire to do so. You just can’t help people who don’t want the be helped.

The problem is addicts. No one who is physiologically dependent on a substance - whether its alcohol or fentanyl or meth - can think rationally. Avoiding the abject misery of withdrawal is what guides their lives. Not reason. Not their well-being. Not their community. Nothing. They need their hit and they need it now and they'll do anything to get it. No one wants to live like that. But addiction takes hold and it's an awful thing.

Progressives, unfortunately, have enabled the downward cycle of so many hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country. Effectively legalizing fentanyl and tranq and other hard drugs has been disastrous, both for cities like Portland and SF as well as for the addicts themselves. Drug courts worked. It takes anywhere from three months to a year for a brain to heal from addiction. Until then, an addict is incapable of thinking clearly and calmly. Drug courts gave addicts two options - jail or treatment. But one way or another, they are going to detox. They can do it the hard way or the easy way. But those are the only options.

It gave addicts a chance. And it gives communities a respite from the depressing mayhem that active addiction causes. More policing is better for the addicts. Tougher judges is better for the addicts. It gets them off the streets, where they will die anyway. Progressives have completely lost the plot. The left is very much a cause of the blight and sadness that have beset so many communities.

You didn’t read the article. It clearly stated that decriminalizing didn’t cause the problem. There were other factors that caused it.

Stop blaming the progressive left for this. The right votes down any kind of healthcare, subsidized housing, or social program. The right turns their backs to folks in need and actively seeks to hurt people with their legislation.

It's not that cut and dry. The article and podcast did state the treatment centers portion didn't materialize fully, but that doesn't mean decriminalization did not cause or exacerbate the problem, because it did.

Again, if you listen to the podcast, they included testimony from FORMER ADDICTS who said decriminalizing drug use was harmful because getting arrested and going to jail was the deterrent and kick in the butt they needed kick their habit.

The reality is that both the criminal justice response and the healthcare response don't fully work. Getting locked up and going to jail works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone. Getting into a treatment center/program works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone.

So the reality is, there are only imperfect solutions on the table. And removing one of those imperfect solutions, which is the criminalization of drugs, definitely made the situation worse. Especially since the treatment alternative was woefully unprepared to fill the gap cause by decriminalization.

It shouldn’t be an either/or proposition. It takes both. Criminal enforcement is not that successful as a deterrent by itself. When they eventually are released with no long-term rehab or support system, many will return to their addictions and criminal activities to support them. Addicts need a lot of sustained assistance and support to escape their self-destructive behavior. People object to the costs of treatment and rehab programs but criminal enforcement is more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have always been a subset of people who, for whatever reason, just can’t function responsibly in society and most of them have no desire to do so. You just can’t help people who don’t want the be helped.

The problem is addicts. No one who is physiologically dependent on a substance - whether its alcohol or fentanyl or meth - can think rationally. Avoiding the abject misery of withdrawal is what guides their lives. Not reason. Not their well-being. Not their community. Nothing. They need their hit and they need it now and they'll do anything to get it. No one wants to live like that. But addiction takes hold and it's an awful thing.

Progressives, unfortunately, have enabled the downward cycle of so many hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country. Effectively legalizing fentanyl and tranq and other hard drugs has been disastrous, both for cities like Portland and SF as well as for the addicts themselves. Drug courts worked. It takes anywhere from three months to a year for a brain to heal from addiction. Until then, an addict is incapable of thinking clearly and calmly. Drug courts gave addicts two options - jail or treatment. But one way or another, they are going to detox. They can do it the hard way or the easy way. But those are the only options.

It gave addicts a chance. And it gives communities a respite from the depressing mayhem that active addiction causes. More policing is better for the addicts. Tougher judges is better for the addicts. It gets them off the streets, where they will die anyway. Progressives have completely lost the plot. The left is very much a cause of the blight and sadness that have beset so many communities.

You didn’t read the article. It clearly stated that decriminalizing didn’t cause the problem. There were other factors that caused it.

Stop blaming the progressive left for this. The right votes down any kind of healthcare, subsidized housing, or social program. The right turns their backs to folks in need and actively seeks to hurt people with their legislation.

It's not that cut and dry. The article and podcast did state the treatment centers portion didn't materialize fully, but that doesn't mean decriminalization did not cause or exacerbate the problem, because it did.

Again, if you listen to the podcast, they included testimony from FORMER ADDICTS who said decriminalizing drug use was harmful because getting arrested and going to jail was the deterrent and kick in the butt they needed kick their habit.

The reality is that both the criminal justice response and the healthcare response don't fully work. Getting locked up and going to jail works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone. Getting into a treatment center/program works to deter or dissuade some people from drug use but not everyone.

So the reality is, there are only imperfect solutions on the table. And removing one of those imperfect solutions, which is the criminalization of drugs, definitely made the situation worse. Especially since the treatment alternative was woefully unprepared to fill the gap cause by decriminalization.

It shouldn’t be an either/or proposition. It takes both. Criminal enforcement is not that successful as a deterrent by itself. When they eventually are released with no long-term rehab or support system, many will return to their addictions and criminal activities to support them. Addicts need a lot of sustained assistance and support to escape their self-destructive behavior. People object to the costs of treatment and rehab programs but criminal enforcement is more expensive.

The decriminalization crowd lied and said otherwise, hence Oregon's failed experiment and this thread.

[Anonymous]

Many former drug users credit their jail time and 10 step programs in the jail with putting themselves on the path to long term recovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not for decriminalizing drugs but I think addiction should be dealt with medical intervention. Criminal intervention isn’t working. America spends like $100 billion on illegal drugs; clearly “Just Say No” and police aren’t making a dent. We waste a lot of time and money on people who choose to destroy their lives with drugs. What’s your solution?

Did you even listen to the podcast or read the article?

I did read the article. As I stated, I don’t think drugs should be decriminalized. The War on Drugs didn’t work nor did decriminalization. I think conservatives are just for putting people into jail so you don’t have to see them (homeless drug addicts). But we have too many criminals in jail and no one wants to be a corrections officer.

Currently, nothing is working! So what’s the controversy in my posts?!

So if "nothing is working," why are you upset about going back to the status quo?

Because our jails are full and there is a hiring crisis for correction officers. Why do you care if people overdose in jail vs outside of jail?

It should be obvious why it's preferable to have something ugly and traumatic like overdosing happening where there's a small/contained audience versus out on the street in front a broad, public audience that includes children......Common sense really is not common.

Yes, it is astonishing that the progressive left decriminalization people believe that it’s better for addicts to die on the cold streets without access to any healthcare than in a jail where there is at least some form of healthcare and a roof. Simply crazy.

If only Reagan hadn’t closed all the institutions where perhaps people could have been cared for and safe while serving something of a sentence.

If you have to stretch back to attacking the closures of the brutal mental health institutions of the 1980s to justify the failures of the progressive left, you are really just proving the point of how wrong the progressive left is and has been.

[Anonymous]

The Atlantic has an analysis piece unpacking why this policy was such a failure: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/oregon-drug-decriminalization-failed/677678/

I thought this part was salient:

Measure 110 did not reduce Oregon’s drug problems. The drug-overdose-death rate increased by 43 percent in 2021, its first year of implementation—and then kept rising. The latest CDC data show that in the 12 months ending in September 2023, deaths by overdose grew by 41.6 percent, versus 2.1 percent nationwide. No other state saw a higher rise in deaths. Only one state, Vermont, ranks higher in its rate of illicit drug use.

Neither did decriminalization produce a flood of help-seeking. The replacement for criminal penalties, a $100 ticket for drug possession with the fine waived if the individual called a toll-free number for a health assessment, with the aim of encouraging treatment, failed completely. More than 95 percent of people ignored the ticket, for which—in keeping with the spirit of Measure 110—there was no consequence. The cost of the hotline worked out to about $7,000 per completed phone call, according to The Economist. These realities, as well as associated disorder such as open-air drug markets and a sharp rise in violent crime—while such crime was falling nationally—led Oregonians to rethink their drug policy.

Both of us have spent the better part of our careers studying and working on drug policy. Both of us watched this deterioration in Oregon’s public health and safety with dismay, and tried to help stanch the damage. We testified before the Measure 110 legislative implementing committee in 2022 in the hopes that the spirit of Measure 110 could be maintained if some reforms were allowed, such as the elimination of open-air drug markets and the resumption of mandated treatment for those suffering from severe addiction. But tweaking the measure proved very difficult. Last year, one of us, Rob Bovett, began working closely with a number of groups trying to reform Measure 110 through legislation, including a bill based on a proposal developed by Oregon’s city governments, sheriffs, police chiefs, and district attorneys, and a bill based primarily on a petition filed by a coalition of Oregonians that had grown weary of the measure’s ongoing failure. He testified before the Measure 110 reform committee and participated in negotiations that led to the reform package that just passed.

We were not surprised that a trivial pressure to seek treatment was ineffective. Fentanyl and meth addiction are not like depression, chronic pain, or cancer, conditions for which people are typically motivated to seek treatment. Even as it destroys a person’s life, addictive drug use by definition feels good in the short term, and most addicted people resist or are ambivalent about giving that up. Withdrawal, meanwhile, is wrenchingly difficult. As a result, most addicted people who come to treatment do so not spontaneously but through pressure from family, friends, employers, health professionals, and, yes, the law.